Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism ….… · · 2017-07-18Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism

REVUE INTERNATIONALE DE PSYCHOLOGIE SOCIALE 2005 N° 1

189

Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates:Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance

Titre français

Nekane Basabe*María Ros**

RIPS / IRSP, 18 (1), 189-225 © 2005, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble

Abstract

This study presents the macroso-cial and macropsychologicalcorrelates of two cultural dimen-sions, Individualism-Collectivismand Hierarchy, based on a reviewof cross-cultural research.Correlations between the culture-level value scores provided byHofstede, Schwartz andTrompenaars and nation-levelindices confirm their criterionvalidity. Thus power distance andcollectivism are correlated withlow social development (HDIindex), income differences (Giniindex), the socio-political corrup-tion index, and thecompetitiveness index. The pre-dominantly Protestant societiesare more individualist and egalitar-ian, the Confucianist societies aremore collectivist; and Islamic soci-

Résumé

Cette étude présente les facteursmacro-sociaux et macro-psycholo-giques de deux dimensions cultu-relles, l’Individualisme-Collectivismeet la Hiérarchie ou Distance auPouvoir, dimensions basées surcertaines révisions des recherchesdans le domaine transculturel. Lescorrélations entre les valeurs, auniveau culturel, fournies parHofstede, Schwartz et Trompenaars,et des index socio-économiquesconfirment la validité de ces dimen-sions. La distance de pouvoir et lecollectivisme sont associés au basdéveloppement social (indice HDI),aux différences de revenus (indiceGini), à l’indice de corruption socio-politique et de compétitivité. Lessociétés majoritairement protes-tantes sont plus individualistes etégalitaires, les sociétés confucia-

Mots-clés

Culture,Individualisme,

Collectivisme, Distanceau Pouvoir o

Hierarchie

Key-words

Culture, Individualism,Collectivism, Power

Distance

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed either to Nekane Basabe,Universidad del País Vasco, Departamento de Psicología Social, Paseo de la Universidad, 7,01006 Vitoria, Spain; or to Maria Ros, Universidad Complutense, Departamento PsicologíaSocial, 28023 Madrid, Spain. Request for reprints should be directed to Nekane Basabe (e-mail [email protected]) or Maria Ros ([email protected])This study was supported by the following Basque Country University Research Grants MCYTBSO2001-1236-CO-7-01, 9/UPV00109.231-13645/2001, from the University of the BasqueCountry and Spanish Government.* Nekane Basabe, University of the Basque Country, San Sebastián, Spain.** María Ros, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 189

Introduction

With regard to social relationships, Individualism-Collectivismand Egalitarianism- Hierarchy are the two most importantdimensions for differentiating nations and cultures.Hofstede’s Individualism dimension refers to the priority given tothe person or the group (often the extended family).Individualist cultures promote introspection and focus attentionon inner experience. In contrast, collectivist cultures do notencourage focusing attention on the inner self – the most salientfeatures of emotional experience are external and interactional(i.e., how one’s actions affect others). Research confirms that cul-tural individualism is correlated with subjective well-being whenhigh income, human rights and equality are controlled (Diener,Diener & Diener, 1995). Examples of collectivist countries areGuatemala, Indonesia and Taiwan, while examples of individual-ist countries are the USA and the Western European nations(Fiske, Markus, Kitayama & Nisbett, 1998; Hofstede, 1991; Smith& Bond, 1998).

CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND SOCIAL CORRELATES

190

eties are more hierarchical. Weexamine the Individualism-Collectivism consequences forattitudes and self-construals at thecollective or national level.Competitive attitudes, an empha-sis on Protestant Work Ethicsindependence and success-cen-tered self-construals are morecommon in less developed, collec-tivist and hierarchical societies,and less frequent in individualistsocieties. A sense of duty andobligation towards the group(group loyalty) are related to col-lectivism. However, egalitarianinterdependence is not associatedwith collectivism.

nistes sont plus collectivistes, et lessociétés islamiques sont plus hiérar-chiques. Nous examinons les consé-quences de l’Individualisme-Collectivisme sur les attitudes et les-concepts de soi au niveau collectifou des nations. Les attitudes compé-titives, l’Éthique Protestante duTravail, les concepts de soi – indé-pendant et centré sur le succès –sont plus fréquents dans les socié-tés moins développées, collecti-vistes et hiérarchiques, et moinsfréquentes dans les sociétés indivi-dualistes. Le sens du devoir et del’obligation envers le groupe(loyauté groupale) est en relationavec le collectivisme. Néanmoins,l’interdépendance égalitaire nes’associe pas au collectivisme.

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 190

A meta-analysis by Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier (2002)showed that core aspects of individualist beliefs are personalindependence and uniqueness. Competition, personal achieve-ment and emphasis on internal attributes are important features,as opposed to other people’s opinions and indications, which areunrelated or negatively related to individualism. Differences inindividualist beliefs between nations are weaker and less clearthan differences in collectivist beliefs. Europeans and LatinAmericans score the same in Individualism as North Americans,while the inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent, Africa and, tosome extent, Japan score lower. The greatest difference inIndividualism is found between Confucianist countries, such asTaiwan, Hong Kong or China, and the USA. Hispanics in the USAdo not score significantly lower in Individualism, and Afro-Americans score higher than whites in this dimension. There isno difference in Individualism on comparing Australia andGermany with the USA and Canada, but neither is there a differ-ence between the two latter countries and Indonesia (Oyserman,Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

According to the meta-analysis by Oyserman et al., a core aspectof collectivist beliefs is a sense of duty and obligation towards thegroup. To a lesser extent, in-group harmony and working ingroups are also typical features. Sense of belonging, relatednessand cooperation are unrelated or negatively related to collec-tivism. Comparisons between nations with regard to collectivistbeliefs show that, in general, Confucianist Chinese report sharingmore collectivist beliefs than the inhabitants of English-speakingcountries. Those from Arab countries, from Eastern Europe andfrom Africa, and to a lesser extent Latin Americans, report greaterendorsement of collectivist beliefs. Despite the fact that the dif-ferences are only moderate, they are more pronounced than inthe case of individualist beliefs, and the greatest differences arefound between North Americans and those from Asian andAfrican countries.

Hofstede’s Power Distance dimension refers to the extent towhich national cultures expect and accept that power is distrib-uted unequally in society. In high power-distance societies, animportant emotional distance separates subordinates fromauthorities. Respect and formal deference for higher status peo-


191

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 191

ple (e.g., parents, elders) are valued. The power-distance dimen-sion is related to how power is organized in society in general,including differential rewards between high and low status peo-ple. Examples of low power-distance countries are Denmark andNew Zealand, and of high power-distance countries, Malaysia andGuatemala. An asymmetrical society would be expected to rein-force competitiveness as a means of ascending in the socialpyramid (Hofstede, 1998; 2001). Various studies suggest thatcompetitiveness, internality, Protestant Work Ethic beliefs andwork centrality are higher in less developed, collectivist and highpower-distance cultures in which materialist values are stillimportant (Furnham, Bond, Heaven et al., 1993; Inglehart,Basañez & Moreno, 1998; Smith, Trompenaars & Dugan, 1995;Van de Vliert, 1998).

Like Hofstede, Schwartz, in his cultural values theory, comparesthe cultural value types of Individualism and the cultural valuetypes of Collectivism, though he uses a different perspective fromthat of Hofstede in his consideration of two types of individual-ism and two types of collectivism. Cultures can be distinguishedby the cultural emphasis they assign to value types that promoteself-enhancement (Mastery) or social change (Intellectual andAffective Autonomy). Cultures that emphasize Mastery give prior-ity to self-assertiveness, and values such as ambition, success,competence or risk-taking are elements of this cultural valuetype. On the other hand, societies that promote Intellectual andAffective Autonomy give priority to the ideas and thoughts ofindividuals. Cultures may reinforce two different types of collec-tivism, Egalitarian Commitment or Conservation and Hierarchy.Cultures that emphasize Egalitarian Commitment socialize theirmembers to commit themselves voluntarily to cooperating withothers and to be concerned for their welfare. In contrast,Cultures that stress Conservation promote the maintenance ofthe status quo, and cultures that give high importance toHierarchy promote differences in power and hierarchical systemsof roles (Schwartz, 1994; Ros & Schwartz, 1995).

The data collected by Trompenaars also yields a two-dimensionalcultural theory of values (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1996).Trompenaars’ Egalitarian Commitment means a preference foruniversalist relations and status based on achievement, with low


192

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 192

scores indicating preferences for personal and particularist rela-tions and ascribed status; the second dimension, UtilitarianInvolvement, sets preferences for family loyalty and collectiveresponsibility against an emphasis on negotiated social relationsand personal responsibility.

Finally, Inglehart’s theory (1991, 1998) states that societies can becategorized according to two bipolar dimensions: Materialism-Postmaterialism and Modernization- Postmodernization.Societies with high Materialism give priority to values of survivaland security (economic growth, stable economy, fighting crime,order), while Postmaterialist societies give more importance tovalues of self-expression and tolerance of minorities (social andpolitical participation, freedom, more humane society). Scarcityof economic resources in a society generates insecurity, and toovercome this it is functional to have materialist priorities; eco-nomic well-being, on the other hand, generates security, thuscontributing to the development of postmaterialist values. Thesecond dimension, Modernization, implies a change from reli-gious authority to state authority through the processes ofsecularization and bureaucratization, implying, in turn, a changefrom a traditional society to a legal-rational society.

Despite the importance of the four cultural value theories ofHofstede, Schwartz, Trompenaars and Inglehart, few studies havemade a comparison of them. There are comparisons ofHofstede’s theory with that of Schwartz (Schwartz, 1994; Gouveia& Ros, 2000), and of Inglehart’s with Schwartz’s (Ros 2000), andeven of the three theories of Hofstede, Schwartz andTrompenaars (Smith & Bond 1998). Nevertheless, there are nostudies comparing the four theories in order to determine theirconvergent validity, or indeed comparing them in relation tomacroeconomic and macrosocial indicators. This is precisely theobjective of our study.

The Study

This article examines the convergent validity of the following cul-tural dimensions: Hofstede’s Individualism and Power Distance,Schwartz’s Conservatism, Hierarchy, Affective and IntellectualAutonomy; and Egalitarian Commitment (Schwartz and


193

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 193

Trompenaars), Trompenaars’ Utilitarian Involvement andInglehart’s Postmaterialism. Moreover it analyses the correlationsof these cultural dimensions with some macrosocial indices(Human Development Index – HDI-, Gross National Product –GNP-, population density, percentage of immigrant population,mobility, family mean size, income inequality, ethnic diversity, reli-gion, etc. – see Table 2) and with values, attitudes and otherpsychosocial correlates (attitudes towards Protestant Work Ethic,interest in politics, confidence in trade unions, perception of con-trol over life). These analyses are based on mean scores fornations, and refer, therefore, to the collective or national level ofanalysis.

First of all, we consider the ecological correlations, by country,between cultural indicators of studies of values. To this end, weconsider Hofstede’s (1991, 2001) Individualism and PowerDistance scores for 74 nations and regions. The regions consid-ered are: Eastern, Central, Northern and Southern Europe,America (North and South), Australia, Asia, the Arab countriesand Africa (see Appendix 1). Europe and the developed world areover-represented and Africa is under-represented. In any case,these indices of values are the most complete data published,and the most representative as regards number of countriesincluded. The ratings are based on questionnaires completed byIBM employees throughout the world in the 1970’s. Hofstede’sdimensions are considered as single dimensions with two poles.The Individualism dimension measures individualism (high orlow), while collectivism is explained by Power Distance, since thispresents the negative correlation with Individualism (Schwartz1994; Gouveia & Ros, 2000).

We also include Schwartz’s value scores (Schwartz, 1994) onEgalitarian Commitment, Intellectual Autonomy, AffectiveAutonomy, Hierarchy, Conservatism. Here we used scores from31 countries, from samples of teachers (Schwartz, 1994). Theregions and countries used by Schwartz include countries fromEastern, Central, Northern and Southern Europe, Asia, Africa(Zimbabwe only), and Latin America (Brazil and Mexico),together with the USA, Australia and Israel. Thus, as in the otherstudies of values, Europe is over-represented and Africa andCentral and South America under-represented.


194

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 194

The scores we used in our study from the work of Trompenaars(Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1996), which share values withthe Hofstede indexes, are restricted to 38 countries. Thoseincluded are from Eastern, Central, Northern and SouthernEurope, Asia, Africa, the Arab countries and Latin America,together with the USA, Canada and Australia. As in other data-bases, Europe is over-represented and Africa, Central and SouthAmerica and the Arab countries are under-represented.

Finally, from Inglehart’s work, in our analyses we consider onlythe Postmaterialism scores of 30 countries (Inglehart, 1991, 1998)– those that coincide with the countries used by Hofstede. As inthe previous cases, there is over-representation of Europe andthe developed countries. The Postmaterialism concept resultsfrom a factor analysis, which identifies a dimension with a polerepresented by postmaterialist values (with items like high sub-jective well-being, not giving importance to hard work,encouraging tolerance, and trusting people), and an oppositepole representing materialist values, with items such as “rejectionof different groups,” “respect for one’s parents,” “liking for work,”and “women need to have children to fulfill themselves”(Inglehart, 1998, p.109-115).

Appendix 1 shows mean scores for each country for the values ofHofstede, Schwartz, Trompenaars and Inglehart.

Secondly, we present the ecological correlations between socio-economic, demographic, political and cultural indicators and thevalues studies. Thirdly, we review cross-cultural studies on indi-vidual correlates of beliefs and attitudes, together with the resultsof our cross-cultural study sampling 29 countries (Fernández,2001; Páez, Fernández, Basabe, & Grad, 2002). We present atti-tude and self-construal dimensions obtained with the scales ofTriandis and Singelis from an exploratory nation-level factoranalysis, with mean scores by country as unit of analysis (seeAppendix 2). These means are correlated with the values scoresof Hofstede, Schwartz, Trompenaars and Inglehart. In order toobtain these correlations we summarize the results of the differ-ent studies that analyze these aspects and supplement them withvarious secondary analyses of published cross-cultural data, aswell as with those of studies carried out by our own team(Basabe, Páez, Valencia et al., 2002; Páez & Zubieta, 2001).


195

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 195

Results

Concurrent Validity of Cultural Value Theories

To check the construct validity of the nation-level scores, a seriesof collective or ecological correlations were performed betweenthe value scores of the four studies: Hofstede (2001), Schwartz(1994), Smith, Dugan and Trompenaars (1996) and Inglehart’sstudy of the World Values Survey from 1990-91 (Inglehart, 1991,1998).


196

Conservatism (Schwartz)

Hierarchy (Schwartz)

Affective Autonomy (Schwartz)

Intellectual Autonomy (Schwartz)

Egalitarian Commitment (Schwartz)

Egalitarian Commitment (Trompenaars)

Utilitarian Involvement (Trompenaars)

Post-materialism (Inglehart)

Individualism(Hofstede)

-.44*

-.44*

.35*

.36*

.46*

.54*

.42*

.64*

Power Distance(Hofstede)

.37*

.21

-.50*

-.30&

-.35*

-.58*

-.14

-.60*

TABLE 1:Intercorrelations of

Cultural Values AcrossNations

Measures

Note. Pearson product-moment coefficients across nations. A high number on each varia-ble denotes a high score on the variable in question. Countries n= 31 (teacher-samples,Schwartz, in Kim et al., 1994); n= 38 (Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1996; n= 30 (Inglehart1991, 1998).* p� .05 (two-tailed) &p� .10 (two-tailed).

Hofstede’s cultural dimension scores show high convergentvalidity with current surveys of values and with the recent cross-cultural studies. Hofstede’s Individualism correlates withAffective and Intellectual Autonomy, Egalitarian Commitment,Utilitarian Involvement and the Post-materialist “Well-being vs.Survival” dimension. Results show that Hofstede’s Individualismis negatively correlated with Conservation and Hierarchy. Theseresults seem to show that Individualism is linked to the develop-ment of an autonomous and distinctive self that assumesindependent and responsible decisions and that feels committedto others by principles of equality. But Hofstede’s Individualismalso has a competitive aspect that accounts for its high correla-tions with Trompenaars’ Egalitarian Commitment, which refers tothe application of universal norms in social relations and theachievement of status based on personal achievement.

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 196

Hofstede’s Power Distance scores are correlated positively withConservatism and negatively with Affective and IntellectualAutonomy, as predicted by Schwartz’s theory. They are also neg-atively correlated with Egalitarian Commitment, whichrepresents preferences for personal and particularist relationsand ascribed status, as opposed to universalist relations and sta-tus based on achievement. Finally, Power Distance is inverselyrelated to Inglehart’s Post-materialism (“Well-being vs. Survival”dimension), due to its emphasis on equality and tolerance ofminorities.Because of the interrelations between the available values mea-sures that are reported above, the correlations with othervariables that follow will be grouped into two major groupings.Firstly, we take as indicators of Individualism, Hofstede’sIndividualism, Schwartz’s Autonomy measures and Trompenaars’Egalitarian Commitment and Utilitarian Involvement. Secondly,we take as indicators of Hierarchy, Hofstede’s Power Distance andSchwartz’s Hierarchy.

Cultural Dimensions and Macrosocial Correlates

In this section we present various socio-economic and demo-graphic indicators from reports published by the United Nationsand other international bodies.For each country we used the Gross National Product (GNP), andthe Human Development Index (HDI), which measures nationalwell-being and trends by combining three basic components ofhuman development: longevity (mean life expectancy in thenation), knowledge (rate of literacy and school population), andstandard of living (Gross National Product per capita, GNP).These indices were obtained from the United Nations Programfor Development (UNPD) (Codelier & Didiot, 1997; PNUD,1999).Other social, demographic and economic indicators employedwere as follows: population density (persons per square mile inthe 1980s), percentage of urban population, percentage of immi-grant population (population percentage in the 1990s originallyfrom foreign countries), mean family size per nation in the 1990s(UNESCO, 1999; Vandello & Cohen, 1999), social mobility indices(percentage of people prepared to move to another city or coun-


197

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 197

try between 1990 and 1993 in 42 countries, from the World ValuesSurvey, Inglehart, 1998), and the immobility index (extent towhich parents’ profession predicts children’s profession (Casi,1997).

The indices used by Diener, Diener and Diener (1995) are theincome inequality or Gini index (ranging from 27 – perfect equal-ity – to 60 – a few individuals have all the resources and theothers have none), and the ethnic diversity index (ranges from 1– nations with nearly homogeneous ethnic composition – to 5 –fragmented nations with many small ethnic groups). The indica-tor used from Lynn and Martin (1985) is the competitivenessindex, which ranges from 12 to 22, and from Levine (1998) theslowness of social life index (median quickness of pedestrians percountry), which ranges from quickness (=1) to slowness (=31).

Inglehart’s study, carried out with surveys on random samplesfrom several countries, provides indices such as percentage ofagreement, from 7 to 10 on a scale of 1 to 10, with confidence intrade unions (from 8% to 67%), with attitudes towards theProtestant Work Ethic (percentage according to the emphasis ondetermination, thrift, effort and hard work as a quality that chil-dren should be encouraged to learn at home, from 27.5% to69.5%), and with perception of control over life (the question was“How much freedom of choice do you feel you have over the wayyour life develops?”) (from 28% to 79%) (Hofstede, 2001;Inglehart, 1991, 1998).

The political indicators are as follows: the TransparencyInternational (1998) index of corruption perception, whichranges from low transparency, 14, in Cameroon, to high trans-parency, 98, for Denmark; the Human Rights Index, taken fromDiener, Diener and Diener (1995), (a score related to the extentto which a nation possesses 40 different human rights (HR); a lowscore represents more rights, thus, Sweden (high HR) = 4.41,China (low HR) = 9); and two indices from the UNESCOInternational Social Survey Program (1999): percentage of peo-ple in agreement with the defense of human rights (ranging from5 to 83) and percentage of people with an interest in politics(ranging from 9 to 79).


198

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 198

Finally, a group of dummy variables was created for religion: thetype of historically predominant religion in each country:Protestant, Confucian, and Islamic (see also Table 2).

Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance:

macrosocial correlates

The causal or antecedent factors of individualism postulated byauthors such as Hofstede (2001) and Triandis (1995) are eco-nomic development, low population density, urbanization,migration, and the move from the extended to the nuclear fam-ily. All of these processes increase people’s resources, capacity forchoice and alternatives, and facilitate personal autonomy fromascribed groups, such as the family (Triandis, 1995). Hofstede’s(1991) longitudinal data suggest that increasing economic devel-opment promotes Individualism. When a country’s wealthincreases, people have access to resources, which provide themwith more privacy and individual choices, thus reinforcingIndividualism. Inglehart’s (1998) hypothesis also suggests thateconomic development increases social well-being and post-materialist values. As Inglehart’s research has shown,cross-national cultural variation is closely associated with a soci-ety’s level of economic development and its cultural heritage.Economic development promotes secular and self-expressionvalues, while economic collapse will push in the opposite direc-tion (Inglehart & Baker, 2000, p. 40-1).Other classic causes of Individualism are the republican democ-ratic tradition, with its respect for individual rights, and religionsin which there is the possibility of individual salvation, such asProtestantism, where the emphasis is on saving and the genera-tion of wealth as a criterion of moral goodness, which Weberargued was one of the causes of the development of capitalism(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler & Tipton, 1985).

Economic and social development

Among the different indicators of Individualism, the Hofstedeindex presents the highest correlation with the per capita wealthof a country. Also correlated to this statistic, but slightly lessstrongly, are Trompenaars’ Egalitarian Commitment and


199

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 199


200

HDI Human Development Index(5)

n=75-23Gross National Product , in USA

dollars(5) n=43-27 (1)

Population Density(8) n= 68-37 Percentage of Urban Population(8)

n=68-30 Percentage of Immigrant Population(8)

n=66-27 Mobility=percentage of people

prepared to move to another cityISSP-1995, (3) n=22-11

Mobility= percentage of peopleprepared to move to anothercountry ISSP-1995, (3) n=22-11

(a) Immobility index n= 26-11, (8)

Family Mean Size(8) n= 63-28Income inequality years 90-Gini(1)

n=28-18 Ethnic diversity index(1) n=46-18Slowness of pedestrians per country(10)

n=26-16Transparency International(2) n=58-28 Competitiveness Index(4) n=38-20 Confidence in Trade Unions(3) n=36-16 (b) Attitudes towards Protestant Work

Ethic(3) n=35-19 Perception of control over life(3)

n=36 -19 Human Rights violations(1) n=47-24 Percentage according to Human Rights

(8) n=40-18 % Interest in politics (very or same)(8)

n=38-17 Predominantly Protestantism (no=1,

yes=2) n=74-28 Predominantly Confucianism (no=1,

yes=2) n=74-28 Predominantly Islam (no=1, yes=2)

n=74-28

Individualism Hierarchy

IDV(2) AA+IA(6) EC-T(7) UI(7) PDI(2) HIE(6)

.48*

.82*

-.13.34*

.34*

.66*

.41*

.06-.62*-.65*

-.46*-.65*

.69*-.45*-.12-.43*

.27

-.64*-.34*

.13

.56*

-.32*

-.17

.45*

.55*

-.16.03

-.06

-.11

-.25

.56*-.57*-.60*

-.12-.71*

.44*-.68*.02

-.44*

.22

-.63*-.22

.00

.46*

-.31*

-.26

.36*

.69*

-.26*.30*

.19

.56*

.37*

-.12-.56*-.27

-.44*-.62*

.73*-.48*.05

-.69*

.51*

-.73*-.30

.07

.62*

-.41*

-.20

.10

.32

-.44*.10

-.08

-.13

-.13

-.23-.47*-.50*

-.36*-.03

.11-.36*-.34.04

-.03

.01-.10

.13

.35*

-.43*

-.28*

-.43*

-.71*

.08-.25*

-.37*

-.08

-.10

.16.48*.66*

.56*

.56*

-.74*.49*.01.33*

-.40*

.53*.09

-.31*

-.53*

.14

.31*

-.63*

-.54*

.17-.19

.10

-.30

-.50

-.31.44*.34

.14.50*

-.44*.33.05.53*

-.16

.68*-.38

.47

-.42*

.62*

.22

TABLE 2:Correlations between

measures ofIndividualism and

Hierarchy and SocialIndices Across Nations

Measures

Note. Pearson product-moment coefficients across nations. * p� .05 (two-tailed) n= numberof countries included in the analysis.IDV=Individualism and PDI Power Distance Index, Hofstede, AA= Affective Autonomy +IA=Intellectual Autonomy, Schwartz, EC-T=Egalitarian Commitment and UI=UtilitarianInvolvement, Trompenaars. A high number on each variable denotes a high score on thevariable in question. Countries n= 75-15. Immobility index (extent to which parents’ profession predicts children’s profession, higherscore indicates lower social mobility in the country)Percentage according to the emphasis on determination, thrift, effort and hard work as quali-ties that children should be encouraged to learn at home Source Data: (1)Diener et al., 1995; (2) Hofstede, 2001; (3)Inglehart, 1991, 1998; (4)Lynn& Martin, 1985; (5)PNUD, 1999; (6) Schwartz, 1994; (7) Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1996,(8) Unesco, 1999, (9) Cais , 1997, (10) Levine 1998

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 200

Schwartz’s Intellectual and Affective Autonomy. This shows thatthe Individualism indices of Hofstede and Trompenaars sharecompetitive values based on personal achievement, while theSchwartz indices reflect other aspects, such as openness tochange.

Socioeconomic development is also related to the social hierar-chy of societies. As can be seen in Table 2, the strongestcorrelation with GNP is found for Hofstede’s Power Distance, andthere is also a strong link between GNP and the Hierarchy valuesof Schwartz, which also show the strongest association with HDI.All of this suggests that countries high in Power Distance andHierarchy have low levels of economic development. Hofstede(2001) argues that cultures with high hierarchical distance arecharacterized by large income differences between social strata.The correlations between socioeconomic indicators and theHofstede’s Power distance index support this thesis: countrieswith larger hierarchical distance indexes have lower HDI andGNP, the difference in income or Gini index is higher, and theyhave lower percentages of urban population and immigrants.

Similarly, other studies indicate the direct relationship betweenHofstede’s Individualism, Schwartz’s Intellectual and AffectiveAutonomy and GNP, as well as the inverse relationship betweenPower Distance, Conservation and GNP (Gouveia & Ros 2000).Recently, Ros (2002) compared the scores on Schwartz’s values(Intellectual and Affective Autonomy and Egalitarianism) andthose of Inglehart (Postmaterialism) and the indices of economicdevelopment (GNP) for 43 countries. By means of a multipleregression analysis, she showed the impact of these values(which had been measured in the 1990s) and GNP (from 1985)on GNP in the year 1995. On the whole, the wealth of countriesand their values (R2 = 0.95) were responsible for subsequenteconomic development. Approximately half of that influence wasrelated to previous GNP and the other half to the impact of val-ues such as Affective Autonomy, Egalitarianism andPostmaterialism. The HDI index (see Table 2) is positively relatedto Hofstede’s Individualism, to Schwartz’s Intellectual andAffective Autonomy and to Trompenaars’ Egalitarianism, and isnegatively associated with Hierarchy and Power Distance. In thestudy by Ros (2002), the results show that the Egalitarianism val-


201

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 201

ues and previous HDI explain 95% of the variance of HDI in 1995,and that while the 1985 HDI is the most important factor (stan-dardized b =.79, p �.01), only the Egalitarianism values arerelated (standardized b =.26, p �.01) to subsequent develop-ment of HDI up to 1995.

Urbanization

A positive relationship is found between degree of urbanizationand Hofstede’s Individualism and Trompenaars’ Egalitarianism,while the relationship between urbanization and Power Distanceis negative. Nevertheless, there is no relationship between thisaspect and the values of Intellectual and Affective Autonomy.Urbanization, associated with industrialization, with the develop-ment of the market, with modernization and with greatercomplexity of social life, appears to reinforce instrumental indi-vidualism. According to Triandis (1995), on the other hand, life insmall towns and rural life in dense communities reinforces socialcontrol and collectivism (Triandis, 1995). However, multipleregressions controlling for the interrelations of HDI and urban-ization did not confirm the specific influence of this factor onHofstede’s Individualism and Power Distance (beta weights werenot significant, not shown in this paper).

Demographic Characteristics: Density and Ethnicity

According to Triandis (1995), dense populations exert pressuretoward a need for coordination and collectivism, and conversely,sparsely populated locations and frontiers exert pressure towardlooseness and self-reliance (and hence individualism).Nevertheless, Individualism is not associated with populationdensity, and neither is there a relationship between the indicatorof Power Distance and population density. This absence of rela-tionship, for the majority of the indicators, may be attributable tothe fact that there are countries with collectivist cultures but lowpopulation density (e.g., Bolivia), and individualist with high den-sity (such as European countries). There is only a correlationbetween countries’ population density in the 1980s withTrompenaars’ values for the 1990s (lower EgalitarianCommitment in countries with high population density), and thisappears to indicate that population density is related to prefer-


202

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 202

ence for particularist relations and ascribed status (negativescores of Trompenaars’ Egalitarian Commitment), and to prefer-ence for family loyalty and collective responsibility (see Table 2).

A positive correlation is found between Power Distance and eth-nic diversity of the population, which can be considered as anindicator of the variability and diversity of the population (seeTable 2). With regard to ethnic diversity, it is probable that soci-eties that must organize large masses with great cultural diversityreinforce rules of authority and status differences. People incountries with large populations have to accept a more distantand less accessible political power than those in smaller societies,who are much closer to the exercise of power (Hofstede, 2001).Hofstede reports a positive correlation with population size.

The indicators of Hofstede and Trompenaars for Individualismare negatively related to ethnic diversity. Collectivist nations aremore heterogeneous (probably because they were later in con-structing a national state, and because they are moresegmented), in contrast to the suggestions of Chan, Gelfand,Triandis and Tzeng (1996). These latter authors probably gener-alized the supposed ethnic homogeneity of collectivist countriesusing a result that is restricted to a comparison of the relative het-erogeneity of the USA with the relative cultural homogeneity ofChina. Multiple regressions computed to control for the interre-lations of HDI and ethnic diversity confirm the specific influenceof this factor on Hofstede’s Individualism and Power Distance.(Individualism standardized b (42) =-.28, p �.08 and PowerDistance standardized b (42) =.40, p �.01).

Geographical mobility

Relationships are found only between Hofstede’s Individualism,Trompenaars’ Egalitarian Commitment and geographical mobility(moving to another location or another country), and betweenHofstede’s Individualism and immigration. Emigration, whichimplies a project of individual mobility, of breaking with one’soriginal ties, is consistent with the fact that the immigrant soci-eties of the New World are characterized by greater individualism.The possibility of changing place of residence, job and class alsoresults in less control by and dependence upon groups, in com-parison with communities that are more stable geographically


203

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 203

and with lower social mobility. Tocqueville, in his classic essay onthe USA – in the mid-19th century, before the Civil War and indus-trialization –, mentioned that the mobile and egalitarian nature ofthe North American communities facilitated easy contact, openrelationships and strong sociability, though at the same time mak-ing it more probable that interpersonal relationships were moresuperficial and fleeting. All of this reinforced individualism(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan et al., 1985). Even so, individualistcountries tend to be more developed, and this encourages immi-gration (both legal and illegal) into them. Nevertheless, while it istrue that 8.7% of the population of North America and 5.4% ofthat of Europe were born elsewhere (both individualist regions,according to the values studies), more collectivist geographicalareas, such as Arab countries and sub-Saharan Africa, have 6.8%and 3.8%, respectively, of immigrant population (UNESCO, 1999).A multiple regression analysis was carried out on percentage ofimmigrants in the population, using Hofstede’s Individualismand Power Distance and socio-economic development index(HDI) as predictors. The Multiple R2 was.18, with the mostimportant predictor as socio-economic development (HDI)(standardized b (62) =.25, p �.. 05), and cultural individualismshowing no specific influence (standardized b (62) =-.02, p�.87). Moreover, Hofstede’s Individualism and Trompenaars’Egalitarian Commitment are positively related to mobility, or per-centage of the population prepared to change city and country(see Table 2). Finally, it was determined whether there was a rela-tionship between indicators of cultural individualism and anindicator of social immobility, defined as the ability of parents’occupation to predict children’s occupation (the higher the scorethe lower the social mobility in that country). There was no asso-ciation with the indicators of Hofstede or Trompenaars, and therelationship was contrary to expectations for Schwartz’s indica-tors of Individualism (the lower the social mobility, the greaterthe Affective and Intellectual Autonomy). Among these countriesare France, Spain and Germany, with low internal social mobilityand relatively high values for Autonomy, while at the otherextreme are countries such as Israel, Hungary and Brazil, withhigh indices of social mobility and, at the same time, relativelylow values for Autonomy.


204

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 204

Family size

Smaller nuclear family size is found in individualist societies, andall the indicators of individualism of Hofstede, Schwartz andTrompenaars are associated with smaller mean family size; like-wise, hierarchical societies show larger mean family size, asindicated by the correlations with both Power Distance and theHierarchy values (see Table 2).Nevertheless, the relationship between nuclear family, capitalismand individualism is not a linear one. Thus, historical studiesshow that the nuclear family pre-existed capitalism, and that theextended family was not common in poor sectors due to the dif-ficult conditions of life; also, family size remained relatively stablein Europe during the industrial revolution (Cicchelli-Pugeault &Cicchelli, 1998). According to Triandis, if the family is large, theneed to share resources and coordinate activities reinforces col-lectivism. Modernization during the twentieth century hasreduced family size, thus contributing to the development ofindividualism. Multiple regressions computed to control for theinterrelations of HDI and family size confirm the specific influ-ence of this factor on Hofstede’s Individualism and Powerdistance (standardized b (57) =-.56, p �.01 and standardized b(57) =.29, p �.05, respectively).In order to calculate the effect of socio-economic development(HDI) on mean family size, controlling for cultural variables, amultiple regression analysis was carried out. The findingsincluded a specific effect of both HDI (standardized b (57) =-.48,p �.01) and Hofstede’s Individualism (standardized b (57) =-.43,p �.01), but the relationship with the Power Distance index dis-appeared (standardized b (57) =-.05, p �.68); Multiple R2 was.56.

Democratic-republican tradition

Individualism was associated with more Human Rights (Diener,Diener & Diener’s 1995 Human Rights Index is used) and withless corruption (assessed by Transparency International).Similarly, the level of political corruption is higher in hierarchicalsocieties, as shown by the associations between the TI index andPower Distance and Hierarchy values. Multiple regressions com-puted to control for the interrelations of HDI, human rights andcorruption confirm the specific influence of these factors on


205

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 205

Hofstede’s Individualism (Human Rights standardized b (45) =-.39, p �.03 and TI standardized b (45) =.45, p£.02, Multiple R2

was.57.) and Power Distance (TI standardized b (45) =-62, p�.01, Multiple R2 was.56).Multiple regression analyses controlling for the influence of socialdevelopment and of the other cultural dimensions, showed thatindividualism predicted a greater respect for human rights (stan-dardized b (33) = -.64, p �.01) (Multiple R2 was.54.). Likewise,level of political corruption (TI) was explained first of all by levelof social development (HDI b (48) =.39, p �.01) and byIndividualism (b (48) =.19, p �.01), controlling the rest ofHofstede’s cultural dimensions (Multiple R2 was.81). As can beseen in these results, the level of social development (HDI) wasa better predictor of a low corruption level than Individualism.The relationship between individualism and the percentage ofpeople “reasonably or very interested” in politics in each country,according to The International Social Survey Program (1990), waspositive but not significant (see Table 2). Interest in politics isonly negatively related to Power Distance, and in cultures inwhich power distance is more highly valued we find less interestin politics, possibly due to the lack of motivation to participatederiving from the legitimacy of hierarchical differences.The percentage of people in agreement with the defence ofhuman rights in 1990 (also according to the ISSP) is negativelyassociated with cultural Individualism, that is, it was higher in thecollectivist countries. Respect for human rights – the extent towhich a country respects a set of 40 basic rights according theindex of Diener et al. (1995) – is greater in the developed coun-tries (HDI, r (47) =-.62, p �.01) and the individualist countries(see Table 2), while rejection of violation of rights is somewhathigher in the collectivist countries, as already pointed out.Likewise, violation of Human Rights (HR) is greater in the hierar-chical societies that emphasize inequalities of power – index ofHR violation is related to Power Distance and to Hierarchy (seeTable 2).


206

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 206

Religions of individual salvation, reform andindividualism

The predominance of Protestantism is associated withIndividualism, though the latter is not associated with theProtestant Work Ethic (see Table 2). That is, the institutional andhistorical dominance of Protestantism is associated with individ-ualist values, but these are not currently associated with theclassic attributes of the Protestant Work Ethic (thrift, effort, deter-mination and work). The proportion of Protestants in eachnation in the 1990s correlated positively with Hofstede’s individ-ualist values of the 1970s, with Schwartz’s values of Affective andIntellectual Autonomy of the 1990s, and with Trompenaars’Egalitarian and Utilitarian values (personal responsibility versusloyalty to the group and shared responsibility) of the 1990s. It hasbeen claimed that Protestantism, which permits the believer tospeak to and interpret God directly, reinforces more horizontaland democratic relationships in society than Catholicism, whichis more gregarious and hierarchical (Mendras, 1998).Nevertheless, Inglehart’s (1998) measure of emphasis on deter-mination, thrift, effort and hard work – as qualities that childrenshould be encouraged to learn at home (all typical attributes ofthe Protestant Work Ethic) was negatively associated withHofstede’s Individualism, with Schwartz’s Affective andIntellectual Autonomy and with Trompenaars’ Egalitarianism val-ues (see Table 2). Two other studies in 41 and 13 countriesrespectively, have found that agreement with a scale of beliefsassociated with the Protestant Work Ethic was greater in the col-lectivist countries and strongly associated with HierarchicalDistance (Smith & Bond, 1998), and these results are confirmedin our study with the two values associated with collectivism,namely Power Distance and Hierarchy.

The predominance of Confucianism is associated with collec-tivism, is negatively related to the Hofstede’s Individualism, toIntellectual and Affective Autonomy and to Trompenaars’Egalitarian Commitment and Utilitarian Involvement, and is posi-tively related to Hierarchy; for its part, the predominance of Islamin a country is negatively related to Trompenaars’ UtilitarianInvolvement dimension and positively related to Power Distance(see Table 2). Lay religions such as Confucianism, which stress


207

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 207

relations of obedience to the Emperor, to one’s parents, etc., andwhich affirm the social order as based on unequal relationships,would be the antecedent for hierarchical cultures. Islamic cul-tures are Collectivist and with high Power Distance. In thesecultures, the theocratic organization of social relations is associ-ated with obedience to the divine will, which defines destiny,independently of a person’s actions. In a general way, Hofstedeclaims that the predominance of religious and philosophical ide-ologies emphasizing stratification and hierarchy is a key elementin the difference between cultures with high and low PowerDistance (Hofstede, 2001). A comparison that dichotomized cul-tures into Confucian and “others” (yes = 2, others = 1) failed toconfirm the association between Confucianism and Hofstede’sPower Distance, even though the correlation was positive asexpected; nevertheless, the Hierarchy values of Schwartz didshow a high correlation with the predominance of Confucianism.Societies in which Islam predominates are also more hierarchicalcultures. In contrast, dominance of the Protestant religion is asso-ciated with low Power Distance (see Table 2).

Cultural Values, Attitudes and Self- Construals

Cultural dimensions and competitiveness, perceptionof control, protestant work ethic beliefs

As already noted in Table 2, higher competitiveness, internallocus of control and agreement with Protestant work ethic beliefsare stressed in developing, collectivist and high power distancecountries. These results are partially based on samples of stu-dents and managers, and may reflect situations in which elitistgroups in poor, developing and collectivist countries tend to bemore competitive and have higher internal locus of control. Infact, perception of life control as measured in Inglehart’s WorldValue Surveys was related to high social development – as mightbe expected from studies linking high social status and internalcontrol (Sastry & Ross, 1998). However, using Inglehart’s nation-ally representative samples from 26 countries, we found that theemphasis on hard work as a quality that children should beencouraged to learn at home was related to Collectivism and tohigh Power Distance and to Hierarchy (see also Table 2). In post-industrial societies, individualist and low power distance cultures,


208

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 208

post-materialist values are related to self-actualization and qualityof life, and are more important than work and material success:for instance, Schwartz found that work is more central in cultureshigh in Hierarchy and Mastery; the same probably also occurs incultures high in Masculinity and Power Distance, given thatHofstede’s scores for Masculinity and Power Distance are stronglyrelated to Mastery and Hierarchy, respectively (Hofstede, 2001).Inequalities of power associated with strongly hierarchical soci-eties are also expressed through the higher incidence of humanrights violations (see Table 2); moreover, an indicator of interestin politics shows that this is lower in such societies. Likewise, thereis more politico-social corruption (see Table 2), and some indica-tors reveal a climate of greater stress in hierarchical societies: higherlevels of competitiveness (Lynn & Martin, 1985) and of the speedof social life (measured by the index of slowness of pedestrians percountry, Levine 1998), lower perception of control, and fewer feel-ings of being able to make choices about one’s life (see Table 2).

Cultural Dimensions and Self-Construals

In order to shed further light on the correlates of nation-levelvariations in values, we utilized data from two studies of national-level differences in self-construal that are described more fully inother papers within this issue (Fernández, Páez & González, inpress; Green, in press). Green made a nation-level factor analysisof student responses from 29 nations to the individualism-collec-tivism scale developed by Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai andLucca, 1988). She identified two nation-level factors, which shenamed as Success Orientation and Self-Reliance. Fernandez et alused the same sample of students from 29 nations and identifiedfour factors among responses to Singelis’ (1994) measure of self-construal (see Appendix 2). They identified four factors, whichthey named as Uniqueness and Independence; Low ContextAssertive Self; Egalitarian Independence; and Group Loyalty.Table 3 shows the four dimensions or factors resulting fromFernández et al’s factor analysis. The number assigned to eachfactor from F1 to F4 follows the order of the dimensions resultingfrom the analysis, but for a clearer description we shall present theresults related to the different self-construals according to whetherthey can be considered as individualist or collectivist.


209

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 209

The individualist self-construal variables are:a) Success Orientation and Self-reliance from Green’s factoranalysis The Success dimension is represented by items like “Ifeel winning is important in both work and games,” “Doing yourbest isn’t enough; it is important to win,” “Success is the mostimportant thing in life,” “Winning is everything,” or “...if you wantsomething done right, you’ve got to do it yourself.”b) Green’s Self-reliance dimension is made up of items such as“In the long run the only person you can count on is yourself,”“To be superior a man must stand alone,” “Only those whodepend on themselves get ahead in life,” “…to co-operate with


210

1. It is important for me to maintainharmony within my group

2. My happiness depends on thehappiness of those around me.

3. I respect people who are modestabout themselves.

4. I will sacrifice my self-interest forthe benefit of the group I am in.

5. I often have the feeling that myrelationships with others are moreimportant than my ownaccomplishments.

6. It is important for me to respectdecisions made by the group.

7. I would stay in a group if theyneeded me, even if I were nothappy with the group.

8. I’d rather say “no” directly, thanrisk being misunderstood.

9. I am comfortable with beingsingled out for praise or rewards.

10. I act the same way no matter whoI am with.

11. I enjoy being unique and differentfrom others in many respects.

12. My personal identity isindependent of others, is veryimportant for me.

13. I prefer to be direct and forthrightwhen dealing with people I’ve justmet.

EgalitarianInterde-

pendenceF1

.83 .34

.35 .42 -.70

.78 -.33

.71

-.80

.58 .54 .34

.90

.72

.79

.53 .40 .47

-.34 .62

.61 .56

.60 .48

GroupLoyalty

F2

LowContextAssertive

F3

UniquenessIndepen-

dence F4

TABLE 3:National-level Factor

Analysis of SingelisItems

Singelis Items

Note. Factor analysis of mean scores by country: Principal components, Rotation varimax,imposed 4 factors, saved factorial scores � .30. Method (ML). n= 29 countries. Data:Fernández, 2001.

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:47 Page 210

someone whose ability is lower than oneself is not as desirable asdoing the thing on one’s own,” or “It annoys me when other peo-ple perform better than I do.”

c) Fernandez et al’s Uniqueness and Independence factor char-acterizes personal identity as independence from others, as anautonomous self that enjoys being unique, and as a consistentperson with low field dependence. This construal (F4) is theresult of factor loads from items such as: “I often have the feelingthat my relationships with others are more important than myown accomplishments” (item 5, negative loading); “I enjoy beingunique and different from others in many respects” (item 11); or“My personal identity is independent of others, it is very impor-tant for me” (item 12) (see Table 3).

d) Fernandez et al’s Low context and Assertive self portrays a selfthat is assertive and low in field dependence. This construal (F3)is the result of factor loading from items such as: “I am comfort-able with being singled out for praise or rewards” (item 9); “I’drather say «no» directly than risk being misunderstood” (item 8);“My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me”(negative loading, item 2); or “I prefer to be direct and forthrightwhen dealing with people I’ve just met” (item 13).

With data from our cross-cultural research (Fernández, 2001;Páez, Fernández, Basabe & Grad, 2002; Páez & Zubieta, 2001), aseries of correlations were performed between the nationalmeans for self-construal factors and country-level scores, usingcountry scores on HDI as well as Inglehart, Schwartz andHofstede values. As can be seen in Table 4, the number of coun-tries used in these correlations varied from 29 to 13. The numberof countries with data for self-construal is 29, including 10 coun-tries from Europe (Russia, Turkey, Latin Europe and FrancophoneEurope), the USA, 11 countries from Latin America (Central andSouth America), Africa (Ghana and Nigeria), Arab countries (Iranand Lebanon), and Asia (Taiwan, China, Singapore). Africa andAsia are under-represented, as are Northern and Central Europe.Similarly, in some analyses, which are presented as those refer-ring to the relationship between Schwartz’s cultural values andself-construals, the number of countries is reduced to 13 or 15,with over-representation of Europe (eight countries). LatinAmerica is limited to Mexico and Brazil, and Arab countries to the


211

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 211

Lebanon, Asia is represented by the same three countries andthere are no values for Africa. Country scores for self-construalcan be found in the article by Fernández, Páez and González (inpress).


212

HDI

IDV

AA+IA

EC-T

PDI

HIE

POST

Success Self-

reliance

Unique-ness

Indepen-dence

LowContextAssertive

EgalitarianInterde-

pendence

GroupLoyalty

-.69*(28) -.36*(28) -.15 (28) -.27 (28) .12 (28) -.44*(28)

-.71*(29) .05 (29) -.19 (29) -.36* (29) -.12 (29) -.43*(29)

-.63*(15) -.11 (15) -.18 (15) -.30(15) .14 (15) -.32*(15)

-.37 (16) -.50* (16) .03 (16) -.02 (16) .43& (16) -.14 (16)

.60*(29) .15 (29) .40*(29) .05 (29) -.06 (29) .08 (29)

.43 (13) .64*(13) .00 (13) .35 (13) -.38 (13) .03 (13)

-.60*(16) -.33 (16) -.01 (16) -.38 (16) .41& (16) -.56*(16)

TABLE 4:Correlation betweenMean Self-Construals

and Cultural Values

Note. Pearson product moment coefficients on collective-nations scores, and (n) numberof countries in parenthesis. A high number on each variable denotes a high score on thevariable as named. Collective variables: Hofstede’s values: IDV=Individualism, PDI=Powerdistance; Schwartz’s values: AA+IA= Autonomy Affective and Intellectual, HIE=Hierarchy;Trompenaars: EC-T=Egalitarian Commitment; POST=Inglehart’s postmaterialism values*p� .05, &p�.10 (two-tailed).

As Table 4 shows, Success was positively related to Hofstede’sPower Distance and negatively related to Hofstede’sIndividualism, Affective and Intellectual Autonomy,Postmaterialist values and Human Development (HDI). Multipleregression computed to control for the interrelations of HDI,Individualism and Power distance confirms the specific influenceof Power Distance and low social development (Power Distanceand HDI beta weights were significant, (HDI standardized b (28)=-.40, p �.01); Power Distance standardized b (28) =.27, p �.07;and Individualism standardized b (28) =-.31, p �.07 ); MultipleR2 was.67.). These data show that competitive success-centeredattitudes are more common in collectivist, hierarchical, material-ist and less developed societies. Self-Reliance is also positivelyassociated with Hierarchy and negatively associated withTrompenaars Egalitarian Commitment and HDI; it is not relatedto Individualism, and is associated with less developed countriesrather than developed ones. However, it is unrelated to GNP (seeGreen’s article in this number). Uniqueness and Independence(F4, see Table 4) is related only to Power Distance.

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 212

Low Context and assertive-self factor scores (F3, see Table 4)were negatively related to Hofstede’s Individualism.

Self-construal variables deemed to be collectivist are (see Table3):

a) Egalitarian Interdependence: this dimension takes intoaccount the values of interdependence, egalitarianism and indi-vidualism. It results from factor scores for items such as: “It isimportant for me to maintain harmony within my group” (item1); “I respect people who are modest about themselves” (item 3);“It is important for me to respect decisions made by the group”(item 6); “My personal identity is independent of others, it is veryimportant for me” (item 12); or “I prefer to be direct and forth-right when dealing with people I’ve just met” (item 13).

b) Group Loyalty, which refers to a person who defines the selfby loyalty to and dependence upon groups. This construct (F2)comprises items such as: “I would stay in a group if they neededme, even if I were not happy with the group” (item 7); “I will sac-rifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group” (item 4); “It isimportant for me to respect decisions made by the group” (item6); or “I act the same way no matter who I am with” (item 10).

Egalitarian Interdependence self-construal (F1) was not associ-ated with any of the cultural variables, nor with HDI. Loyaltytowards in-groups (F2, Table 4) was negatively related toHofstede’s Individualism, to lower HDI and to materialist values.Multiple regression computed to control for the interrelations ofHDI, Individualism and Power Distance suggest the specific influ-ence of collectivism (beta weight was marginally significant,standardized b (28) =-.34, p �.11); Multiple R2 was.27).

To sum up, only one of the two of collectivist self-construal mea-sures shows convergence with cultural collectivist values. GroupLoyalty shows a clear relationship with Collectivism and withpoorer societies.

Among the self-construal measures, Success is related to GroupLoyalty (r (29) =.53, p �.01) and Uniqueness (supposedly anattribute typical of individualist values) (r (29) =.41, p �.02),while Self-Reliance is associated negatively with EgalitarianInterdependence (r (29) =-.52, p �.01)). It would appear thatattitudes focused on success are compatible, on the one hand,


213

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 213

with a collectivist value, group loyalty, and on the other, with theattributes of uniqueness and independence, while the only clearrelationship of Self-Reliance is its link with hierarchy. Finally,Uniqueness is only related to societies high in Power Distance.

Discussion and Conclusion

In complex societies, the more the development, the more theindividualism. On the whole, a positive relationship has beenfound between indicators of wealth (GNP) and social develop-ment (HDI) and diverse indicators of cultural individualism.However, the existing evidence suggests that wealth reinforcesIndividualism. Moreover, economic development is associatedwith Post-materialism, that is, with a decline of the ProtestantWork Ethic and utilitarian individualism and an increase inexpressive individualism.

Urbanization is positively associated with the predominance ofindividualist values, but is related specifically to social develop-ment.

Multivariate analysis confirms the specific influence of family size,human rights, corruption and ethnic diversity on Hofstede’sIndividualism and Power Distance. Although the nuclear familypre-existed industrial development, in communitarian cultures,family size is greater in more collectivist countries.

Individualism is associated with lower levels of nepotism andgreater respect for political freedom and civil rights – thoughlevel of social development is also an important factor. In con-trast, in hierarchical societies, which emphasise social and powerinequalities, there is more violation of human rights and higherincidence of political corruption.

Less developed societies, with less education, lower lifeexpectancy and income, less urbanisation, and in which there arelarge income differences between rich and poor, are character-ized by a more authoritarian or hierarchical culture, wheredifferences of status and power are more accepted and legiti-mated. Cultures with larger populations and cultural or ethnicdiversity are also characterized by a system with greater hierar-chical distance.


214

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 214

Hierarchical values are less common in societies with a majorityof Protestants, and are more often present in Islamic societiesthan in others. Likewise, Hofstede values showed no overall dif-ferences between Confucian societies and the rest of thecountries. However there are differences for the hierarchy valuesof Schwartz – so that the difference between Confucian societies(supposedly more hierarchical) and the rest is not so clear. Itshould be borne in mind that the Hofstede indicator has morevalidity, in considering 60 countries, as opposed to Schwartz’s 28.This result may be due to the fact that there are other societies,such as those of Islam, with strong traditional values of hierarchy,deference to authority and gerontocracy. In sum, as Inglehart hasnoted, religious traditions appear to have had an enduringimpact on the contemporary value systems of societies (Inglehart& Baker, 2000).

The classical attributes of the Protestant Work Ethic, which in pre-vious eras characterized capitalist and modern societies, are nowmore typical of collective societies with greater hierarchical dis-tance. This is also congruent with the greater presence ofcompetitive attitudes in developing, collectivist and hierarchicalcountries (Lynn & Martin, 1985). With regard to competition andpersonal achievement, Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier(2002) remark that when competition was included in the stud-ies, the difference between North Americans and Japanesedisappeared, suggesting that competitiveness is unrelated to cul-tural individualism – as indeed Mead concluded in anethnographic review (Fiske, 2002). One explanation of the preva-lence of competitive attitudes in collectivist samples is the factthat our participants are students (as are those in most of thestudies reviewed by Oyserman et al.). It would not be surprisingif students in collectivist nations were more individualist than thegeneral population.

Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier (2002) conclude that coreaspects of individualism are personal independence and unique-ness. US respondents scored higher in public self-consciousnessthan Japanese and Korean respondents, confirming a relation-ship between individualism and presenting oneself in public asan individual (Hofstede, 2001). Nevertheless, in our data, bothUniqueness and Independence and Self-Reliance were only


215

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 215

related only to hierarchical values, with no relation to the indi-vidualism/collectivism dimensions.

Our data suggest that competition and personal achievement arerelated to hierarchical and less developed societies. In ourresults, “individualist” attributes such as personal achievement,Success (as measured on Green’s items), and competitive atti-tudes were more highly valued in developing countries andcollectivist and hierarchical cultures than in post-materialist,developed, more egalitarian and contractual societies. In a com-plementary way, the differentiation between Success-centeredattitudes and Self-reliance shows that Success was clearly relatedto Collectivism, but Self-reliance was not, and was more common,in contrast to the individualist assumptions, in less developedcountries. Congruent with the association between collectivism,power distance, success and competition, a competitivenessscale was related to collectivism and to power distance in a 42-nation study (Van de Vliert, 1998), and Triandis et al. posit thatcompetition is related to vertical individualism and not to hori-zontal individualism (Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002).

Group Loyalty shows a relation with collectivism and economicdevelopment, and presents the highest and most negative corre-lation with Hofstede’s individualist cultural values. Oyserman,Coon and Kemmelmeier’s (2002) meta-analysis confirms thatindividualist North Americans score lower than other samples onscales emphasizing a sense of duty towards the in-group.However, when the scale included items on relatedness, on senseof belonging and on seeking other people’s advice, NorthAmericans reported higher scores. Waterman (1984) argues thatinterdependence and individualism are associated, because indi-vidualist values reinforce generalized trust and voluntarycoordination towards compatible and coordinated goals, whichfacilitates pro-social and cooperative behavior. In our data, rela-tional interdependence was unrelated to cultural indices.

The correlations between cultural variables and self-construals aswell as Oyserman et al.’s conclusion confirm that a core aspect ofcollectivism is a sense of duty and obligation towards the group,that relational interdependence is unrelated to collectivism, andthat success and competition are related to collectivist, hierarchi-cal and less developed societies. In less developed, hierarchical


216

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 216

and collectivist societies, the relative scarcity of resources, a hardstruggle for social survival, and acceptance of inequalities allimpose strong in-group solidarity, generalized competitivenessand an emphasis on personal effort and reward. In developed,egalitarian, individualist and post-materialist societies, materialstability, lack of ascribed group membership and expressive indi-vidualism de-emphasize competition and probably reinforce theimportance of social relationships, as suggested by the associa-tion between interpersonal trust, individualism and egalitarianvalues.In this line it would be necessary to consider the costs and effectsof competitive attitudes, strongly centered on the quest for suc-cess and on the values of the Protestant Work Ethic, which appearto characterize societies that are currently in the process of devel-opment, and are collectivist, hierarchical and focused on materialvalues, such as economic growth.

References

Arrindell, W.A., Hatzichristou, Ch., Wensink, J., Rosenberg, E., vanTwillert, B., Stedema, J., & Meijer, D. (1997). Dimensions ofnational culture as predictors of cross-national differences in sub-jective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,37-53.

Basabe, N., Páez, D., Valencia, J., Rimé, B., Pennebaker, J., Diener,E., & Gonzalez, J.L. (2000). Sociocultural factors predicting sub-jective experience of emotion. Psicothema, 12, 55-69.

Basabe, N., Páez, D., Valencia, J., González, J. L, Rimé, B., &Diener, E. (2002). Cultural dimensions, socio-economic develop-ment, climate and emotional hedonic level. Cognition andEmotion, 16, 103-126.

Bellah R.N., Madsen R., Sullivan W.M., Swidler, A. & Tipton, S.M.(1985). Habits of the heart. New York: Harper and Row.

Bond, M.H. (1991). Chinese values and health: a cultural-levelexamination. Health Psychology, 5, 137-152.

Bond, M.H. (1994). Into the heart of collectivism: A personal andscientific journey. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi,


217

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 217

& G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, meth-ods and applications (pp. 66-76). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bond, M.H. & Smith, P.B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and orga-nizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 205-235.

Casi, J. (1997). Metodología del análisis comparativo. Madrid:CIS.

Chan, D.K., Gelfand, M.J., Triandis, H.C. & Tzeng, O. (1996).Tightness-looseness revisited: some preliminary analysis in Japanand the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 31,1-12.

Cicchlli-Pugeault, C. & Cicchelli, V. (1998). Las teorías sociológi-cas de la familia. París: La Decouverte.

Cordelier, S. & Didiot, B. (1997). The world: Annual worldreview of economy and geopolitics. Paris, France : LaDécouverte.

Cross, S.E., Bacon, P.L., & Morris, M.L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 78, 791-808.

Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting thesubjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 69, 851-864.

Diener, E. & Larsen, R.J. (1993). The experience of emotionalwell-being. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emo-tions (pp. 405-415). New York: The Guilford Press.

Fernández, I. (2001). Actitudes, Autoconceptos, Cultura yEmoción: Una investigación transcultural. Doctoral Thesis,UPV: San Sebastián/Spain.

Fernández, I., Carrera, P., Sánchez, F., Páez, D., & Candia, L.(2000). Differences between cultures in emotional verbal andnon-verbal reactions. Psicothema, 12, 83-92.

Fiske, A.P. (2002). Using individualism and collectivism to com-pare cultures: A critique of the validity and measurement of theconstructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). PsychologicalBulletin, 128 (1), 78-88.


218

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 218

Fiske, A.P., Markus, H.R., Kitayama, S., & Nisbett, R.E. (1998) Thecultural matrix of social psychology. In D. Gilber, S. Fiske, & G.Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, (4th ed., pp.915-981). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Furnham, A., Bond, M.H., Heaven, P., Hilton, D., Lubel, T.,Masters, J., Payne, M., Rajamanikan, R., Stacey, B. Van Daalen, H.(1993). A comparison of Protestant work-ethics in 13 nations. TheJournal of Social Psychology, 133, 185-197.

Goodwin, R. (1999). Personal relationships across cultures.London: Routledge.

Gouveia, V.V. & Ros, M. (2000). The Hofstede and Schwartz mod-els for classifying individualism at the cultural level: Their relationto macro-social and macro-economic variables. Psicothema, 12,25-33.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations. Software ofthe mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences. Second Edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Inglehart, R. (1998). Modernización y posmodernización. Elcambio cultural, económico y político en 43 sociedades.Madrid: CIS (nº161).

Inglehart, R. (1991). Culture shift in advanced industrial soci-ety. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R. & Baker (2000). Modernization, cultural change andthe persistence of traditional values. American SociologicalReview, 65, 19-51.

Inglehart, R., Basañez, M. & Moreno, A. (1998). Human valuesand beliefs: a cross-cultural sourcebook. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press.

Kagitçibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and collectivism. In J.W.Berry, M.H. Segall & C. Kagitçibasi (Eds.). Handbook of cross-cul-tural psychology: Vol 3. Social behavior and applications (pp.52-65). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Levine, R. (1997). A geography of time. New York: Basic Books.


219

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 219

Lynn, R. & Martin, T. (1995). National differences for thirty-sevennations in extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and eco-nomic, demographic and other correlates. Personality andIndividual Differences, 19, 403-406.

Maier, W.; Gaensicke, M.; Gater, R.; Rezaki, M.; Tiemens, B.;Urzua, R..F. (1999). Gender differences in the prevalence ofdepression: A survey in Primary care. Journal of AffectiveDisorders, 53 (3), 241-252.

Markus, H.R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self:Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation.Psychological Review, 98, 224-53.

Mendras, H (1998). Sociología de la Europa Occidental. Madrid:Alianza.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002).Rethinking Individualism and Collectivism: Evaluation ofTheoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. PsychologicalBulletin, 128, 3-72.

Páez, D., Fernández, I., Basabe, N., & Grad, H. (2002). Valores cul-turales y motivación: creencias de auto – concepto de Singelis,actitudes de competición de Triandis, control emocional e indi-vidualismo – colectivismo vertical-horizontal. Revista española deMotivación y Emoción, 4, 8-19.

Páez, D. & Zubieta, E. (2001). Descripciones de las culturas, indi-cadores psicológicos, y macrosociales comparados con lasposiciones de valores de las culturas. En M. Ros & V.V. Gouveia(Eds.). Psicología social de los valores humanos. Madrid:Biblioteca Nueva.

PNUD (1999). Informe sobre desarrollo humano 1999. Madrid:PNUD-Mundiprensa. [World development report, 1999].

Ros, M. (2002) Los valores culturales y el desarrollo socioe-conómico: una comparación entre teorías culturales. RevistaEspañola de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 99, 9-33.

Ros, M & Schwartz, SH. (1995). Jerarquía de valores en países dela Europa Occidental: una comparación transcultural, RevistaEspañola de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 69, 69-88


220

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 220

Sastry, J. & Ross, C.E. (1998). Asian ethnicity and the sense of per-sonal control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 101-120.

Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: Newcultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C.Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, S., & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and col-lectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85-119).Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Singelis, T.M. (1994). The measurement of Independent andInterdependent Self-construal. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 20, 580-91.

Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.S. & Gelfand, M. (1995).Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collec-tivism: a theoretical and measurement refinement.Cross-cultural Research, 29, 240-275.

Smith, P.B., & Bond, M.H. (1998). Social psychology across cul-tures. (2nd. ed.). London: Prentice Hall.

Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National cultureand managerial values: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.

Smith, P.B., Trompenaars, F., & Dugan, S. (1995). The Rotter locusof control scale in 43 countries: A test of cultural relativity.International Journal of Psychology, 30, 377-400.

Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. (1998). The shiftingbasis of life satisfaction judgements across cultures: emotionsversus norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,482-493.

Transparency International (1998). Corruption Perception Index[On-line]. Available on Internet: http://www.gwdg.de/~uwvw/icr.htm.

Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder:Westview Press.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M. & Lucca, N.(1988). Individualism and collectivism: cross – cultural perspec-tives on self – ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 323 – 338.


221

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 221

Unesco (1999). Informe mundial sobre la cultura. Madrid: Eds.Unesco/Acento Editorial-Fundación Santamaría.

Vandello, J.A. & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of individualism andcollectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 77 (2), 279-292.

Van de Vliert, E. (1998). Gender role gaps, competitiveness andmasculinity. In G. Hofstede (Ed.). Masculinity and Femininity(pp.117-129). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Waterman, A.S. (1984). The psychology of individualism. NewYork: Praeger.


222

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 222

Appendix 1: Index Scores for Countries from Hofstede,Schwartz, Trompenaars and Inglehart


223

Africa East (1)Africa West (1)Arab Countries (1)ArgentinaAustraliaAustriaBangladeshBelgiumBoliviaBrazilBulgariaCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaCzech RepublicDenmarkEcuadorEstoniaFinlandFranceGermany (2)Great BritainGreeceGuatemalaHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanKorea (South)LuxembourgMalaysiaMaltaMexicoMoroccoNetherlands

382038469055207512383080232013153358748

6063716789356

2580481441705476394618602659304680

----

3.50----

3.303.13

--

3.32----

4.01-

3.083.514.414.03

-3.96

-3.113.34

----

3.622.95

-3.54

--

3.16-

3.23-

3.51

----

4.12----

4.133.78

--

4.27----

4.58-

3.934.625.154.75

-4.09

-4.084.44

----

4.314.60

-4.68

--

4.07-

4.20-

4.44

----

4.06----

3.974.43

--

3.97----

3.64-

4.263.843.353.42

-3.68

-4.043.97

----

4.513.82

-3.87

--

4.46-

4.03-

3.68

647780493611806564697039638067357357187840336835356095684677785828135045546040

10456817038

----

2.36----

2.643.07

--

3.70----

1.86-

2.002.032.162.27

-2.01

-2.832.42

----

2.831.69

-2.86

--

2.43-

2.35-

2.26

----

4.98----

4.924.83

--

4.49----

5.52-

4.965.265.455.37

-5.35

-4.854.87

----

4.885.57

-4.69

--

4.66-

4.99-

5.39

---

-3818279-84-66

-164--

-220---

-103217

--

109111138142

31-

-73-74-31

-241-

104-39-

-64-171

---68

123

---44

-31-

12-

-2294--99---

214109

--20-954

5-86

--70159-36-87

-6--1-

-41-109

---

-50

51

---

19-

22-

27-

19-

251907----

23--

33272524---

1213--

22-

27-

2518---

21-

32

IDVCountry A. A. A. I. CON PDI HIE EC(S) EC (T) UI (T)PostMat

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 223


224

New ZealandNigeria NorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussia El SalvadorSerbiaSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSouth AfricaSpainSurinamSwedenSwitzerlandTaiwanThailandTrinidadTunisiaTurkeyUSAVenezuelaVietnam YugoslaviaZimbabwe(3)

79206914111632602730391925205227655147716817201638379112202765

3.98------

3.133.54

----

3.042.763.76

-3.97

--

4.243.213.62

--

3.253.65

---

3.85

4.36------

4.094.12

----

3.684.035.03

-4.90

--

5.333.934.08

--

4.124.20

---

3.82

3.73------

4.313.76

----

4.384.284.27

-3.42

--

3.254.314.22

--

4.273.90

---

4.21

2277315595649468639093668674

10471495785313458644780664081707649

2.38------

2.532.08

----

2.752.111.76

-2.03

--

2.202.853.32

--

3.302.39

---

3.14

5.15------

4.825.62

----

4.794.984.36

-5.55

--

5.194.684.34

--

5.125.03

---

4.48

--8

16056--33

-1491

-126-232

--

-60---3

-129--29---

196--

-300-

--4096

-90--

-66127-18140131

--

-193---

-53-94--

-92---15--44-

-1320----

1317-

11-----

1825-

2530-----

22----

IDVCountry A. A. A. I. CON PDI HIE EC(S) EC (T) UI (T)PostMat

Mean scores by country. Hofstede’s Data n = 74; Schwartz’s Data n = 31; Trompenaars’ Datan = 38; Inglehart’s Data n = 30(1) Hofstede’s scores from East Africa = Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia; and from WestAfrica = Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone; Arab Countries = Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,Saudi Arabia(2) Schwartz’ scores from West Germany; (3) Hofstede’s score from Zimbabwe = SouthAfrica.Data = Hofstede (2001, pp.500-02); Schwartz (1994, in Kim, Triandis et al., pp: 112-115);Trompenaars in Smith, Dugan & Trompenaars, 1996)Hofstede’s Data: IDV = Individualism and PDI = Power Distance, Schwartz’ Data: AA= Affective Autonomy, IA = Intellectual Autonomy, CON (S) = Conservatism, EC (S)= Egalitarian Commitment; Trompenaars’ Data: EC (T) = Egalitarian Commitment and UI= Utilitarian Commitment; Inglehart’s Data: PostMat = Post-Materialist values. A high numberin each variable denotes a high level in the variable in question.

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 224

Appendix 2: Means by country for nation-level factoranalysis of Self-construals


225

Note. Factor analysis of mean scores by country with Singelis Items: Principal components,Rotation varimax, imposed 4 factors, saved factorial scores� .30. Method (ML). n= 29 coun-tries. Data: Fernández, 2001.

ArgentinaBelgiumBoliviaBrazilChileChinaColombiaFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGuatemalaIranItalyThe LebanonMexicoNigeria PanamaPeruRussia El SalvadorSingaporeSpainSwitzerlandTaiwanTurkeyUSAVenezuela

0.4216-0.41060.73730.8306

-0.3183-0.7630-0.17710.51700.8750

-2.98860.5090

-0.09290.20560.18341.4885

-0.42780.03231.42740.9945

-2.30690.8736

-0.7830-0.31250.73340.3387

-0.3646-1.56710.4089

Egalitarian Interdepen-

denceF1

Country

0.4887-1.16761.03581.59500.16910.0906

-0.0728-1.7545-0.00620.3110

-0.59141.1218

-0.8501-0.8465-0.4589-0.93321.1158

-0.07980.23760.05552.29520.62200.7479

-1.8070-1.2510-1.51770.37460.3721

Group Loyalty

F2

-1.0088-1.48690.0159

-0.25960.45511.18000.4101

-1.28242.129350.3285

-0.25240.65890.2696

-0.27150.51031.81490.13430.64990.3203

-0.3149-0.7633-1.3637-0.7853-1.66482.2297

-0.6922-0.48000.0586

Low ContextAssertive

F3

-0.2868-0.29110.5512

-0.64190.2568

-1.13381.0311

-0.3643-1.5793-0.7291-0.52530.8111

-0.77110.3539

-0.23312.09731.14201.79830.11810.26530.1500

-0.5419-0.9454-0.4186-1.68101.66090.79570.7420

UniquenessIndependence

F4

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 225

MEP 1/2005 18/04/05 17:48 Page 226

Documents

Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism ….… · · 2017-07-18Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism